Which is the best video codec out there?

The Best Codec According to me is:


  • Total voters
    318

prashant0084

Right off the assembly line
Hi Everybody. Thanx a lot form all the great info. Here is some more info on the same topic from another forum Question: In your opinion, what is the best video codec? Answer:XviD is the best MPEG-4 video codec. We have compared many examples using WMV9, Xvid and DivX codecs, and came to a conclusion that video created with XviD codec has the best quality. Let's look at each codec in more detail... We have compressed a video clip using 3 different codecs with the same settings (resolution: 320x240): Codec #1: XviD v1.1 - bitrate: 780 kbps, profile: home theatre profile level, single pass Codec #2: Windows Media Video v9 - bitrate: ~780 kbps Codec #3: DivX v6.4 - bitrate: 780 kbps, profile: home theatre profile, single pass Screenshots: XviD produced superb video with very sharp detail Windows Media Video v9 good quality (comparable with XviD), but video is slightly "soft" with a bit less definition DivX average quality: a lot of blocky and fuzzy artifacts around the edges of objects XviD XviD codec produces industry-leading compact high quality MPEG-4 video. Its quality and efficiency has made it one of the most popular video codecs online. The XviD codec is developed and maintained by a handful of skilled and interested engineers from all over the world. Playback of XviD movies is usually supported in new DVD players nowadays. This codec makes it possible to compress a full-length DVD-quality movie enough to fit on a single CD, while still maintaining high image quality. The video is usually combined with MP3 or AC3 audio. Quality: XviD maintains good detail, keeps the background and faces smooth. It looks very good when the clip is in motion. Pros: Free, excellent image quality, support in consumer electronics devices, good encoding speed. Summary: An excellent choice for playback and for video encoding. Microsoft Windows Media Video 9 Microsoft's video codec makes vast improvements over that from series 8, and more importantly, the decode stream parameters are now fixed – future iterations of Windows Media Video will make improvements in the encoder, but those will be able to play back on devices that are WMV9 compatible. This has enabled them to find support in several new and a great many upcoming DVD players, digital media adapters, and portable video players. Quality: WMV9 does a good job as XviD, with about the same level of detail. Usually, WMV9 clips doesn't have compression artifacts around the edges, but video is slightly "soft" with a bit less definition. It looks excellent and the problems virtually melt away when the clip is in motion. Pros: Free Windows encoder, excellent image quality, support in consumer electronics devices and portables. Cons: Average encoding speed. Summary: Though slower, this codec is equal in overall quality to XviD. DivX The codec from DivX, Inc is popular online, and has even found its way into several consumer electronics devices. DivX ;-) 3.11 alpha refers to a hacked version of the Microsoft MPEG-4 Version 3 video codec, extracted around 1998 by French hacker Jerome Rota (also known as Gej). In early 2000, Rota created a company to improve the codec development. Free versions of DivX Pro before 5.2 typically contained spyware. From 5.2 onwards, including version 6.4, no spyware was included, but Pro version (with DivX encoder) is only available in the form of a paid release. Quality: DivX isn't quite as sharp as the source material. There are noticeable compression artifacts around the edges of objects - still present when the video is in motion. The background isn't as smooth as it should be. Pros: Good encoding speed, support in consumer electronics devices. Cons: Not free (19.99$), average image quality. Summary: This codec has worse quality than WMV9 and XviD. Of course, quality isn't the only factor when it comes to personal video encoding. It's a processor-intensive task that can take quite a long time. Let's take a quick look at the encoding time for these three codecs: 780KBit Encoding Times (Pentium 4 3GHz CPU), Clip Duration: 1 min, resolution: 576x320 Codec Encoding time XviD 00:35 WMV9 00:42 DivX 00:23 Certainly both codecs – XviD and DivX – are fast. SUMMARY: The best codecs are XviD and Windows Media Video 9 -- it all depends on your priorities. If you're going to stick to computers as playback devices, the faster speed and excellent image quality of XviD is welcome. If you want to play your stuff on the PDAs, portable video players, and DVD players, WMV9 has broader industry support and is worth the extra encoding time. Both codecs delivered quite impressive image quality. It's difficult to say whether XviD or Windows Media Video 9 looks better. It's safe to make the generalization that the XviD encoded clips tend to have a touch more detail. On the whole, watching the clips in motion and scrutinizing details over and over, it's hard to recommend one over the other. XviD certainly encodes faster, which can be a real concern when compressing large video clips. WMV9, on the other hand, has found its way into several consumer electronics devices, with a great many more on the way. The XviD codec is also available in consumer electronics devices, but support for WMV9 in DVD players, portable video players, and home media gateways is certainly stronger.
 

comrade

foreign return(0)
i cant afford to encode my videos at 780kb/s bcoz file size will be huge dont have patience to upload the encoded file thru my 256kbps connecion

which is the best video codec for low bitrate movies...bitrate around 100-200kb/s
 

prashant0084

Right off the assembly line
Hi

Can anyone tell me which is most space efficient & the most widely supported compression codec (by new DVD & MP4,MP3 players available around). I have heard only of Divx support DVD players.
 

ratedrsuperstar

The Sexy Beast
^^for low bitrate use vp7 and use VBR at 32kbps adjust quantizer 4-40 use 4-50 for even low bitrate.encoding speed 3 for P4 era proccessors or 2 for Core 2 Duo(atleast 2Ghz).

most of my movies are converted like this so most english movies fit in 140-170 MB.will get much lower size at speed 2 and quantizer max to 50/56.
but vp7 fails for most hindi song sequences where there are lots of people.so hindi movies fall about 250-350 MB.

Note-you'll not get fullscreen quality as xvid or divx but good enough at 1/5 of their size besides at 1.5-1.6 times the resolution the viewing isn't grainy at all.

^DivX,Xvid and MP4 are the same so any player supporting Divx will play them.Compress your files using Xvid and use audio codec as WMA 64kbps(even 32kbps is good enough for normal movies) or ogg 64kbps.
i don't have much xperience using xvid so check the best bitrate or quantizer for your viewing.
 

comrade

foreign return(0)
^^ thanks for the info. will try the above soon and let you know the results..

btw youtube supports vp7?
 

VideoEditingIndia

www.VideoEditingIndia.com
My vote goes to H.264

The major codecs I tested were:

DivX 6.2.2
XviD
VP62 (is now implemented in the popular Flash 8 Video)
VP70
WMV9(VCM)
3viX
MS MPEG-4 V3
x264
H264

And the first post listed x264 also. But x264 is not a codec, its an encoder library(dll files) for H.264 which is used in FFMPEG (and it is open source, anybody can use it)
 
OP
maverickrohan

maverickrohan

SABER RIDER
comrade said:
i cant afford to encode my videos at 780kb/s bcoz file size will be huge dont have patience to upload the encoded file thru my 256kbps connecion

which is the best video codec for low bitrate movies...bitrate around 100-200kb/s
As I have said ... There is no codec that comes close to VP70 & H264 when it comes to low bitrate encoding!

prashant0084 said:
Hi Everybody. Thanx a lot form all the great info. Here is some more info on the same topic from another forum Question: In your opinion, what is the best video codec? Answer:XviD is the best MPEG-4 video codec. We have compared many examples using WMV9, Xvid and DivX codecs, and came to a conclusion that video created with XviD codec has the best quality. Let's look at each codec in more detail... We have compressed a video clip using 3 different codecs with the same settings (resolution: 320x240): Codec #1: XviD v1.1 - bitrate: 780 kbps, profile: home theatre profile level, single pass Codec #2: Windows Media Video v9 - bitrate: ~780 kbps Codec #3: DivX v6.4 - bitrate: 780 kbps, profile: home theatre profile, single pass Screenshots: XviD produced superb video with very sharp detail Windows Media Video v9 good quality (comparable with XviD), but video is slightly "soft" with a bit less definition DivX average quality: a lot of blocky and fuzzy artifacts around the edges of objects XviD XviD codec produces industry-leading compact high quality MPEG-4 video. Its quality and efficiency has made it one of the most popular video codecs online. The XviD codec is developed and maintained by a handful of skilled and interested engineers from all over the world. Playback of XviD movies is usually supported in new DVD players nowadays. This codec makes it possible to compress a full-length DVD-quality movie enough to fit on a single CD, while still maintaining high image quality. The video is usually combined with MP3 or AC3 audio. Quality: XviD maintains good detail, keeps the background and faces smooth. It looks very good when the clip is in motion. Pros: Free, excellent image quality, support in consumer electronics devices, good encoding speed. Summary: An excellent choice for playback and for video encoding. Microsoft Windows Media Video 9 Microsoft's video codec makes vast improvements over that from series 8, and more importantly, the decode stream parameters are now fixed – future iterations of Windows Media Video will make improvements in the encoder, but those will be able to play back on devices that are WMV9 compatible. This has enabled them to find support in several new and a great many upcoming DVD players, digital media adapters, and portable video players. Quality: WMV9 does a good job as XviD, with about the same level of detail. Usually, WMV9 clips doesn't have compression artifacts around the edges, but video is slightly "soft" with a bit less definition. It looks excellent and the problems virtually melt away when the clip is in motion. Pros: Free Windows encoder, excellent image quality, support in consumer electronics devices and portables. Cons: Average encoding speed. Summary: Though slower, this codec is equal in overall quality to XviD. DivX The codec from DivX, Inc is popular online, and has even found its way into several consumer electronics devices. DivX ;-) 3.11 alpha refers to a hacked version of the Microsoft MPEG-4 Version 3 video codec, extracted around 1998 by French hacker Jerome Rota (also known as Gej). In early 2000, Rota created a company to improve the codec development. Free versions of DivX Pro before 5.2 typically contained spyware. From 5.2 onwards, including version 6.4, no spyware was included, but Pro version (with DivX encoder) is only available in the form of a paid release. Quality: DivX isn't quite as sharp as the source material. There are noticeable compression artifacts around the edges of objects - still present when the video is in motion. The background isn't as smooth as it should be. Pros: Good encoding speed, support in consumer electronics devices. Cons: Not free (19.99$), average image quality. Summary: This codec has worse quality than WMV9 and XviD. Of course, quality isn't the only factor when it comes to personal video encoding. It's a processor-intensive task that can take quite a long time. Let's take a quick look at the encoding time for these three codecs: 780KBit Encoding Times (Pentium 4 3GHz CPU), Clip Duration: 1 min, resolution: 576x320 Codec Encoding time XviD 00:35 WMV9 00:42 DivX 00:23 Certainly both codecs – XviD and DivX – are fast. SUMMARY: The best codecs are XviD and Windows Media Video 9 -- it all depends on your priorities. If you're going to stick to computers as playback devices, the faster speed and excellent image quality of XviD is welcome. If you want to play your stuff on the PDAs, portable video players, and DVD players, WMV9 has broader industry support and is worth the extra encoding time. Both codecs delivered quite impressive image quality. It's difficult to say whether XviD or Windows Media Video 9 looks better. It's safe to make the generalization that the XviD encoded clips tend to have a touch more detail. On the whole, watching the clips in motion and scrutinizing details over and over, it's hard to recommend one over the other. XviD certainly encodes faster, which can be a real concern when compressing large video clips. WMV9, on the other hand, has found its way into several consumer electronics devices, with a great many more on the way. The XviD codec is also available in consumer electronics devices, but support for WMV9 in DVD players, portable video players, and home media gateways is certainly stronger.
Thanks prashant, that was a very well written review ... everything written in that review is absolutely true! Its just that, there are many codecs out there but these guys have just focused on 3 :( ... You see, there was reason why Adobe chose VP62 over all these other codecs when they launched the Flash codec ... and there is a reason why EA chose VP62 for in game videos ... and a reason why abc.com has chosen VP70 to broadcast HD video online ... all these are big professional companies ... they base their decisions on intensive tests and other stringent requirements!!!

prashant0084 said:
Hi

Can anyone tell me which is most space efficient & the most widely supported compression codec (by new DVD & MP4,MP3 players available around). I have heard only of Divx support DVD players.
The answer to that is DivX & XviD ... they both require the same decoder (h/w & s/w) ... and can even decode each other and all other MPEG-4 based codecs like 3viX, MS-MPEG-4 and other derivatives!

comrade said:
^^ thanks for the info. will try the above soon and let you know the results..

btw youtube supports vp7?
what do u mean by, does youtube support it?

VideoEditingIndia said:
My vote goes to H.264



And the first post listed x264 also. But x264 is not a codec, its an encoder library(dll files) for H.264 which is used in FFMPEG (and it is open source, anybody can use it)
yeah i agree ... H264 & VP70 are very close

And I mentioned x264 as a codec back then as I did not find any free H264 encoders & x264 had its own 4CC code ...

u see, back then it seemed very similar to how XviD was an open source encoder for DivX as XviD was nothing but an Open Source alternative based on DivX 4.x ... even its name was a reverse twist of DivX <-> XviD ... its only after sometime that XviD became a full fledged codec on its own right!

Anywaz I know you are right I hope u understand what my thought process was back then!

===================================================================================================================

BTW ... you guys should check out On2's new website ... its pretty kewl:

*www.on2.com/

Also check our their corporate customer base! ... Its impressive!
 
Last edited:

VideoEditingIndia

www.VideoEditingIndia.com
H264 & VP70 are very close
I agree that, when its in SD. But Do you know Adobe choses H.264 for its HD Streams iN Flash 9. Not VP70.

H.264 is far better & faster than VP70, But you should be in High Profile and atleast in 5.2 level, if posible use Mainconcept H.264 Pro encoder than x.264

The fight is bw H.264 and VC-1. I dont know how VP70 came here!!!

x264 had its own 4CC code ...
Not only x264. All encoders has its inbuild CODECs and all CODECs has its own decoder.

I hope u understand what my thought process was back then!
Yes, let it be man, You did a great job!!! Congrats!
 
Last edited:
OP
maverickrohan

maverickrohan

SABER RIDER
for ur first point ... see this:

*www.brightcove.tv/title.jsp?title=1184676893

you'll know why Adobe did that ...

PS: H264 uses more complex algos & has a higher CPU overhead rather than VP70 ... VP70 does not require as powerful a system as H264 to decode HD
 

VideoEditingIndia

www.VideoEditingIndia.com
Nice, Good find.

So are you sure, VP70 is better than H.264? (Forget about CPU overhead, look for quality with small filesize)

Check this: *forum.ripp-it.com/sujet_t7953.htm

Anyway why don't we arrange an online test here?
 
Last edited:
OP
maverickrohan

maverickrohan

SABER RIDER
nopes ... one is not better than the other ... H264 is better in some scenarios, VP70 is better for some other uses and scenarios ...

Also,
H.264 is an industry standard - MPEG-4 Part 10 (it is used to make HD & BD DVDs ... broadcasting digital TV to set top boxes, etc.

VP70 is a proprietary codec made by a small company (On2), it is used by companies such as Adobe (Flash 8 video), AOL, Skype, Nokia, XM Satellite Radio, Sony, Yamaha, TI, LSI Logic, Analog Devices, VideoEgg, Brightcove, Cox, Naver.com (Korea), Daum (Korea), Tencent(China), to list only a few to deliver customized video content!

BTW, Im not sure if you can watch the HD videos on abc.com as you are in India, but if you get a chance do see them, please do, you'll love it! They stream very smoothly and are even far superior to DVD video!!!
 

VideoEditingIndia

www.VideoEditingIndia.com
I agree with you... VP7 streams well and faster than H.264

But I hope, you didn't try all the features of H.264. Which encoder you are using for H.264?

I tested VP7, WMV9 and H.264 myself for my site *funphotosvideos.com/video and I found H.264 on High profile is far better than VP7 & WMV9.

hey stream very smoothly and are even far superior to DVD

No, Do not compare HD Videos with DVD.s Check my site for the quality of H.264 in just 30-40MB. (Note: the source is not even HD!!!!)

Yes, I can watch abc.com and not impressed much when comparing to Apple's HD Videos.
 
OP
maverickrohan

maverickrohan

SABER RIDER
i use ffdshow ...

and i like both H264 and VP70 ... so im not arguing ... its just that Im more impressed with VP70 as it is the underdog made by a small company ... and its finally doing well!

also .. nice site .. but at 2000kbps+ i think most codecs will do a good job!
 

VideoEditingIndia

www.VideoEditingIndia.com
Yes, I too like VP7, its not like WMV9. Good and Free for personal Use.

No, do not compare the quality of H.264 ENCODED IN FFD WITH x.264. Try Mainconcept H.264 Pro or better VSOft H.264 which supports Quantization Scaling Matrices. Then you too love H.264

No, its HD Man, you need atleast 3000kbps for 720P. Don't compare CODECs for HD less than 2000kbps, if you are speaking about quality. (If you cant spend 30MB/Song for HD, Then you dont need HD)

Nice man, You did a great job...
 

ratedrsuperstar

The Sexy Beast
lolz 2 big codec masterminds colliding.thnx for the info V.E.I i will try vsoft h.264.lets see if this can beat vp7 in my opinion

gr8 looking on2's site explain me about the embedded video technology which they hv written there and the audio codec frm some company called codingxxxxx they say 64kbps cd quality stereo
 
Last edited:

VideoEditingIndia

www.VideoEditingIndia.com
64kbps cd quality stereo
They may claim, but its impossible man(Remember the days microsoft released WMA!!!)

As per the red book, CD quality has information for 16bit and headroom upto 44.1KHz WHICH YOU CANNOT HOLD in 64kbps.

Human ear can hear upto 20KHz, so you must need atleast 2 samples per sec, that's why CDs has 40KHz (44.1). Ans theritically you need 1.4Mbps to acheive this standard.

Even 384kbps AC3 (Dolby Digital) failed when analysing frequency & spectrum with Audio CD.

So the correct term is "VIRTUAL CD QUALITY", Am I right?

This is Original CD Audio:
*www.lincomatic.com/mp3/pnpcm.jpg

This is MP3 at 192kbps
*www.lincomatic.com/mp3/sw192.jpg
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom